completely dickies...

If OCPW specialists reached Douma and confirmed information by Russian specialists that no chemical weapons attack has happened in Syria, this would have nullified all US actions and intentions, says Russia's State Duma Foreign relations committee Alexei Chepa.

He added that Trump's decision to conduct strike in Syria is deeply mistaken and can lead to very heavy consequences.

It's quite amazing. The Donald does something more crazy than nuts and the Western media is in "serious" rapture, as if the guy was a modern avenger — a jesus Christ with a big dick for brains. Hurrah! The Donald has balls! Alleluia! Trump shows "courage" by bombing sumpthin'! There is something totally wrong with our News cycle. Have we got PMT (post-madness-trolloping) or what?...

Russia and Iran have also slammed the attack by the Western states on Syria, which had been conducted before OPCW experts were set to start probing the alleged chemical incident in Douma as they arrived in the Arab Republic on Friday.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has denounced joint US, British and French strike on the country as a "brutal, barbaric aggression," saying that the attack "aims at hindering the mission's work and preempting its results."

The Western attack won't have any impact on the Syrian army's fight against militants and restore control of the entire country, Damascus has emphasized.

"This aggression will only lead to inflaming tensions in the world" and threatens international security," the statement reads.

According to the state-run SANA news agency citing Damascus, the Western missile strikes aimed at blocking a probe by the OPCW international chemical watchdog into the alleged gas attack in Douma, Eastern Ghouta.

After multiple calls by Damascus and Moscow, OPCW experts arrived in Syria on Friday in order to probe the alleged Douma chemical attack on the ground and were supposed to take samples on the site.

The illegal attack on Syria that the Trump administration has been threatening for the last week has started:

President Trump ordered a military attack against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Friday, joining allies Britain and France in launching missile strikes in retaliation for what Western nations said was the deliberate gassing of Syrian civilians.

The U.S. and its allies have committed a flagrant violation of international law, and Trump has trampled on the Constitution once again. This attack probably won’t succeed on its own terms, and it risks a larger conflagration. It remains to be seen how large and prolonged the latest intervention turns out to be, but whatever happens next it was wholly unnecessary for U.S. security, a breach of the U.N. Charter, and completely illegal according to U.S. law. If Congress does nothing to challenge the president’s illegal attack, they will be accepting own irrelevance in matters of war from now on.

Trump’s statement announcing the attack contained a lot of the usual moralizing rhetoric we have come to expect from presidents when they start unnecessary military interventions. At one point, he even refers to the “righteous power” of the U.S. and its allies without appreciating how ridiculous and pompous this sounds to everyone in the region and most nations around the world. Incredibly, he addressed Syria’s patrons and asked, “What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children?” Trump should know the answer, since he just hosted one of the chief architects of the war on Yemen that the U.S. has backed to the hilt for the last three years. Britain welcomed the Saudi crown prince earlier on, and France just hosted him in the last few days. All three have been arming and supporting the Saudis and their allies in Yemen no matter how many atrocities they commit. There may be governments that have the moral authority to lecture Syria and its allies over their atrocious conduct, but the Trump administration and our British and French allies aren’t among them.

The Saudis and their allies have used the weapons sold to them by the U.S. and other Western governments to slaughter innocent Yemeni civilians by the thousands, including cluster munitions that almost every nation on earth has outlawed. Cluster munitions are inherently indiscriminate and insidious weapons that threaten civilians long after the conflict has ended. Our military has refueled the jets that they use to blow up crowds of refugees, wedding processions, funerals, and schools. The coalition blockade has created record-setting famine and cholera crises that put millions of lives in jeopardy, and the U.S. continues to support the war anyway. Indeed, U.S. support for their war effort has only increased since Trump took office.

It could be that this tweet will go down in history like the German Empire's declaration of war on Aug. 1, 1914, or like U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's 2003 presentation at the United Nations ahead of the Iraq invasion. As a document that historians will analyze when retracing the road to ruin.

But perhaps nothing will come of it. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin will ignore the provocation. And that hope serves to illustrate the lunacy we are facing these days: The prospects for world peace lie in the hands of the Kremlin autocrat. Because nobody trusts the man in the White House to display judgment or discretion.

All too often, Donald Trump has rejected reason. All too often, the U.S. president has taken the path diametrically opposed to prudence. And he did so again this week, responding to Russian threats with a drastic threat of his own. "Get ready Russia," he tweeted on Wednesday in a 223-character threat of war. And a chilling one at that, because it sounded almost as though he were talking about a new video game: "Nice and new and 'smart!'" he wrote. Let's play!

Perhaps the most surprising news surrounding the US, British and French strike on Syria Saturday morning was the report that the country's Air Defense Force managed to shoot down just shy of 70% of the Western cruise missiles launched. Sputnik looks at how the Syrians managed to do it.

The Western attack, executed this morning at 4:00 am Syrian time on April 14, saw US Navy warships in the Red Sea and Air Force B-1B bombers and F-15 and F-16 aircraft rain dozens of ship and air-launched cruise missiles down on the Syrian capital of Damascus, an airbase outside the city, a so-called chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, and an equipment storage facility and command post, also near Homs. B1-Bs are typically armed with JASSM cruise missiles, which have a 450 kg warhead and a range of 370 km. US Navy warships launched Tomahawks, which have 450 kg warheads and an operational range of between 1,300 and 2,500 km.

The idiots of the West, let at the UN by that nasty piece-of-shit woman, Nikki Haley, have a lot to answer for in the complete fanciful fabrication of their motives for their "action".

The United Nations Security Council has convened after the US, the UK and France had launched airstrikes at Syria in a move described as "brutal aggression" by Damascus. Moscow stated that the attack had been carried out initially on the eve of the arrival of OPCW experts to the Syrian capital who aimed to probe the alleged Douma chemical attack.

Russia: Strike on Syria 'Act of Aggression' Against Sovereign State

Speaking on the missile strikes, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said Moscow condemns the attack, adding that Washington, London, and Paris disregarded calls for common sense and international laws by conducting airstrikes against Syria. He added that the US actions have lead to a deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

The headlines of the ST (the Sunday Turdograph) are a conglomerate of chest-pumping gorilla-style inflated rubbish.

On the cover we have:

US fires 100 misslies in attack on Syrian 'monster'

Putin condemns strike but backs away from retaliation

RUSSIAN ROULETTE

On page 4-5:

'IT'S MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!'

TRUMP CLAIMS TWEET SUCCESS as Russia refuses to retaliate

Strikes risky but won't lead to WWIII

Assad supporters fill street of Damascus to defy Donald

On page 96-97:

A sepent who spit poison

FORCES AT WAR : Syria's complex conflict began with anti-government protests in March 2011.Since then more than 350,000 people have been killed. — Regime and allies — Rebels — Jihadists — the Kurds — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar — international Coalition

An image of "a young victim of a chemical weapon attack"

---------------------------

All these articles in the merde-och SS (Sunday Shitopapers) are toned to promote the West's simplistic twisted view of the conflict. The image of the "young victim" is a set up. There is no way an adolescent — in no protective clothing — would be holding a respirator to a "gassed" baby who looks asleep.

"The serpent who spit poison" is another dramatic headline that has no proof. The international investigators of the so-called latest "gassing" in Douma had not even arrived there when the Wests's bombs rained on Syria as "punishment" for it.

The forces at war headline fails to indicate that the "2011 protests" were lead by Daesh-in-the-making. The photographs of the time clearly show the Daesh flags being used by the crowds, nor did the commentary indicate that the "protesters" fired on the government's police and guards keeping a watch. This commentary also forgets the subtext: In 2009, Obama requested that a Saudi and Qatari gas pipeline be installed through Syria. The request was refused by Assad. The general policy of the US has always been to support the Wahhabi/Sunni/Salafist Muslim against the Shia (Iran), while creating as much disruption to "socialist" countries such as Syria and Libya. From 2009, the US and its media led by Soros, started a campaign — in the West and in Syria — to get rid of Assad. The US fomented the "2011 protests".

At this stage, Daesh escaped the script controlled by the USA and became fully odious. Decapitation, killings of Westerners, boasting online, a new Caliphate... etc. The West had an image problem and had to rein in Daesh which at the time called itself IS, ISIL, ISIS... The USA had also sponsored some "moderate" (ridiculous term) rebels against the Assad's government. The US supplied arms to these (Sunni) rebels who more often than not ended up as Al Qaeda and Daesh supporters.

having to fight Daesh and the US sponsored "moderate" rebels, the Syrian Government (not a "regime") was slowly loosing the war, leaving the US (ruled by Obama-the sneak) awaiting for the Assad government to collapse. This did not happen with the intervention of the Russians who turned the table in just a few days. The "moderate" rebels were proven to be either Al Qaeda, Al Nusra (an outfit that changed its name to avoid being fully labelled "terrorists" by the West) and Daesh. In this operation, the Russians were far more "surgical" that the Western forces dedicated to "destroy" Daesh but instead from time to time hit the regular Syrian army positions.

In order to give the West, the "moral" motives to be active in Syria, a few "gassing" events were staged by the "rebels". The "red-line" crossing was an emotive call to arms. These gassings, examined by US chemical experts, were proven to be staged, fake or non existent. As Daesh retreated, the US provided safe passage to its "officers".

The "success" of the bombing by the West is that 70 per cent of the missiles were shot down by the Syrian forces with old Russian technology. The success of the West is that Putin is a smart man. No Russian was hurt in the stupid Western attacks. Putin let the Syrians deal with the attack. At this stage the obvious monsters on this planet are Trump, May and Macron. That awful nasty woman, Nikki Haley, representing the USA at the UN is worse than a monster. She is a full-on psychopath of high caliber.

These are particularly important for politicians to note, given opposition to such action in the public crosses the ideological spectrum, uniting the traditional anti-war Left with the new anti-establishment Right.

Security interests

The primary and incontestablepriority for any government is the security of its own citizens.

In terms of the long-term security of the Australian people, any escalation of the Syrian conflict would be disastrous, and worse still if we were to become involved against the Syrian state.

Disastrous or not, this is a crap discussion, conversation whatever you want to call it. There is no morality, nor any reason why the West should bomb Syria. Regime change is not an option for the United Nations. The West has been trying to rot Syria with rebels, Daesh and what-not, but this is completely immoral, illegal and void of reason. Stop it.

Having set themselves above international law by bombing Syria without UN authorization, the US, the UK and France are now going calling on other countries to unite behind their fait accompli and endorse their actions.

American, British and French ships and airplanes fired over 100 missiles at Syria Saturday morning, claiming it was in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Douma. The three countries did not wait for UN authorization, or even for evidence from the scene: the international team of experts from the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had just arrived in Syria to investigate when the missiles began to fly.

As US President Donald Trump triumphantly declared “mission accomplished,” his French colleague Emmanuel Macron called for the UN Security Council to step in and pick up the pieces.

The US-led missile strike against Syria, allegedly aimed at suspected chemical weapon sites, has reportedly resulted in the destruction of a pharmaceutical facility used to produce cancer drugs.

The Institution for the Development of Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries in Barzeh, which was one of the targets of the recent US-led attack against Syria, was used to produce medical drugs which are currently in short supply in the country due to sanctions imposed by the West, Press TV reports.

One needs to remember that the nasty biological weapons being made on trucks in the desert by Saddam Hussein — as emotionally presented to the United Nations by Colin Powell — were no more than meteorological stations pumping balloons...

At the House hearing, Democrats grilled Mattis on the wisdom and legality of Trump ordering an attack on Syria without explicit authorization from Congress. Mattis argued it would be justified as an act of self-defense, with 2,000 U.S. ground troops in Syria [bold mine-DL]; he insisted he could not talk about military plans because an attack “is not yet in the offing.”

The U.S. military presence in Syria is already illegal in a couple ways. The Syrian government has never given the U.S. permission to operate on its territory, and Congress has never authorized any mission inside Syria. Our forces have no international mandate to be there, and they certainly don’t have a mandate to fight the Syrian government. Obama had no legal authority to expand the war on ISIS into Syria, and so he had no authority to send U.S. forces into Syria as part of that war. Even if the presence of U.S. forces in Syria had been authorized by Congress, it would still be in violation of international law. Even if the war on ISIS had been authorized, it would give the U.S. no right to initiate hostilities against the Syrian government.

The fact that the U.S. has an illegal military presence in Syria obviously doesn’t give our government license to attack the Syrian government or its allies, and it just drives home that all U.S. military operations inside Syria are illegal. The U.S. cannot use its other illegal behavior to justify a new attack, and the fact that Mattis is reduced to making this claim shows that there is no credible case to be made that attacking the Syrian government is legal.

Noted torture enabler John Yoo has never seen an illegal government action he couldn’t rationalize, so of course he thinks attacking the Syrian government is fine:

“I think that statutory authorization comes from the [authorization for use of military force] passed after 9/11, which allows the use of force with regard to any group connected to the 9/11 attacks, which includes ISIS (which is an offshoot of al Qaida). Because ISIS is operating in Syria, the U.S. can use force in Syria,” Yoo said in an email.

Perhaps this is where Paul Ryan gets his nonsensical belief that the 2001 AUMF covers an attack on the Syrian government. It shouldn’t have to be said, but Yoo is absolutely wrong. The 2001 AUMF cannot possibly apply to the Syrian government, which is not in league with Al Qaeda or any other jihadist groups. If you don’t like Yoo’s first garbage opinion, he has another:

An unrepealed 2002 war authorization allowing for the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein also can justify an attack on Assad, Yoo said, because that legislation “allows the use of force to stabilize Iraq, which the use of force against Assad could advance.”

This is such a stupid and dishonest misreading of the 2002 AUMF that it shouldn’t need to be refuted. To be clear, an authorization for using force against the old Iraqi government cannot be used to justify attacks on a different government in a different country over 15 years later. Of course, Yoo doesn’t think there is any need to bother with these torturous misinterpretations because he believes the president has inherent power to start wars anywhere whenever he wants:

“But my constitutional view is that the president does not need these statutory authorizations because as commander-in-chief Trump can deploy the armed forces on his own…”

This is what is at stake in the debate over attacking Syria. If you don’t think attacking the Syrian government is illegal, you are reduced to buying into the anti-constitutional nonsense of John Yoo and others like him. If you think that the president’s authority is limited by the Constitution and the power to decide when and where to go to war rests solely with Congress, you have to oppose an attack on the Syrian government as the illegal overreach that it is.

In a report dated 1 March 2019, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) attests to the fact that were never any prohibited chemical substances in Douma (Syria) during the attack of 7 April 2018. The reprisal tripartite bombing (United States, France, United Kingdom) was therefore unjustified. This scandal is exactly identical to the story of the bogus Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It will be followed by many other items of fake news as long as the West continues to trust their medias.

The behaviour of Western journalists is particularly strange – they copy the allegations made by their political leaders by treating them a priori as founded in truth, but do not take into account the contrary interpretations offered by many international instances. They reveal themselves to be incapable of questioning the fake news in which they wallow.

The justification for the destruction of Iraq

Thus, in 2003, they unanimously parroted the allegations of George W. Bush, according to which Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Then they copied the lies of Tony Blair, according to which Iraq possessed missile launchers capable of reaching the West in 45 minutes and killing the population by spraying combat gases. And finally, they adopted the fairy tales told by Secretary of State Colin Powell, according to which Iraq was hiding Oussama ben Laden.

However, at the same time, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) stated that there was no doubt that the allegations of Messrs Bush and Blair were false. This Commission was the only organisation which had been allowed access to Iraqi territory, and had been able to realise all the verifications it wanted. Neither the CIA nor MI6, which contradicted the Commission, had enjoyed such an opportunity.

Let’s remember, by the way, that Jacques Chirac’s France was opposed to the war on Iraq. But it chose to use the argument that « War is always the worst of solutions », and not the argument that the Anglo-Saxon accusations were clearly untrue, as the UNMOVIC had revealed.

Today, we remake History with films and TV series. We agree to admit that we have been tricked. But we pretend that the US and UK Intelligence services were manipulated by their political leaders, and that no-one had any way of knowing. This is untrue, and it is enough to study the Press of that time to see that they were all in league in their attempt to attempt to discredit the Director of the UN Commission, Swedish politician Hans Blix, who dared to stand up to to the greatest world power of that time. That is what the Chilcot Commission was supposed to establish, thirteen years later [1].

Identically, we never mention the accusations hurled by Colin Powell at the UNO Security Council [2], according which Oussama ben Laden was living in Baghdad en 2002, and that his lieutenants still lived there, busy making ricin. Since Iraq, they claimed, they were preparing attacks in France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia. There was therefore a state of emergency.

However, believing this rubbish supposes that one knows nothing about the Ba’ath party in power in Iraq. Thus, rather than admit their ignorance, the Western journalists preferred to forget the episode.

The complicity between the medias has not changed

Nothing has changed since the attack on Baghdad by the United States and their allies – the medias have lied once again, deliberately this time, in order to hide their previous involuntary lie. They all prefer to tell us how they were abused. Not one of them has admitted to professional misconduct by minimising the advice of UN experts.

Historians who have studied war propaganda have shown that those who seek war always build up an incredible quantity of proof and false witness accounts. Although all journalists recognise that « the first victim of war is Truth » (Rudyard Kipling), not one of them has yet tried to develop a method which would protect them from being intoxicated once again. And yet it’s quite simple – it’s enough to keep a cool head, and when everyone else gets excited, do not hesitate to swim against the current and do your job, always remembering to check your sources. This is what we have done, and it has earned us the title of « conspiracy theorists ».

The justification for the war against Syria

So, concerning the war on Syria, everyone continues to believe unquestioningly that the events began as a « revolution against a dictatorship », and that the « régime » had responded by « massacring its own people » using « tortures », « barrel bombs » and « chemical weapons », which forced the population to turn to violence. All of this is either stupid (as was the case of the phoney invitation of Oussama Ben Laden by President Saddam Hussein), or else denied by various international missions (as with the UNMOVIC).

The La « revolution against the dictatorship » has been formally contradicted by the only organisation capable of judging the situation – an international mission by the Arab League which was authorised to travel everywhere in Syria, and which had the personnel numerous enough to cover the whole territory (24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012) [3]. But journalists always prefer to believe Western governments rather than the organisations which have the means of verifying.

The photographs of people who died under « torture », blamed on Syria by the Caesar Report, are in reality photographs of people who died under torture by the jihadists. We only need to think for a moment - Caesar declared he took them for the Syrian Arab Army, but did not know the identity of the dead. What purpose could it serve for Damascus to establish a photographic file with absolutely no information on the victims?

The « barrel bombs » are a legend which is equally stupid – why would the Syrian Arab Army use hand-made bombs when it possesses sophisticated bombs supplied by Russia?

After the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,

the Syrian chemical weapons

The most interesting point here is the accusation of the use of chemical weapons. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) handed in its report on 1 March 2019. It had been tasked with establishing the truth about the alleged attack of 7 April 2018 in Douma, which was unilaterally sanctioned by the bombing of Syria by the United States, France and the United Kingdom the following week. The OPCW report is a pearl. Although it does not say so explicitly, it confirms point by point that the whole affair is a montage.

Let’s note that after the attack on the Ghouta five years earlier, Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. Its stocks of chemical weapons had been stored under guard, then destroyed by the United States and Russia, under the control of the OPCW. Pretending that Damascus still possessed chemical weapons after this work of destruction is above all contesting the work accomplished by the Hague, Moscow and Washington.

In 2018, the State Department claimed that it had credible proof of the « use of Sarin gas by Syria » against the « democrats », while Russia denounced a spectacle commanded by the United Kingdom. The British Minister for Foreign Affairs, Boris Johnson, played his indignation with a straight face, railing against these « grotesque, bizarre accusations », and this « flagrant lie ».

However, the attack was alleged by three sources, all of them British – the White Helmets (a NGO controlled by MI6), the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (a shopfront for the Muslim Brotherhood with Intelligence by MI6), and the Army of Islam (an armed group founded by Zohran Allouche, whose entire family lived in London in a luxurious residence guarded by the police). The mission of the OPCW, blocked by the Army of Islam, was to count the bodies of the victims and autopsy them. It was not authorised to enter Douma until after they had been « incinerated » - an unbelievable treatment for the bodies of Muslims, and not justified from a sanitary point of view. According to the OPCW, the samples taken attest to the fact that no prohibited chemical substance had been used in Douma. None.

However, the organisation admits that two shells may have been fired on the site of the alleged contamination, and that they may have contained a chlorinated toxic substance. Chlorine disperses in the open air. It can only kill in a confined space. This is why it has never been listed as a prohibited weapon, and is used by everyone as a household cleaning product.

Let’s also note that the Army of Islam (Jaych al-Islam) is the « democratic » organisation which decapitated, with production-line efficiency, « Bachar’s dogs » (meaning the Syrians who refused to vilify the heretic President Bachar el-Assad) [4]). It won celebrity by condemning to death the Syrians found guilty of homosexuality and throwing them off the rooftops. It was the Army of Islam’s chief, Mohamed Allouche, supported by the Western powers, who presided the delegation of the « moderate opposition » at the UNO negotiations in Geneva.

In short, the bombing of Syria by the United States, France and the United Kingdom was not only a violation of international Law, but was also unjustified.

The treatment of the OPCW report by the Press

If the Western Press were honest, it would have published a faithful rendition of the OPCW report. This was not the case. The Anglo-Saxon journalists remained curiously silent, only mentioning the information in passing. Their French counterparts were more specious.

They stated that in the past, a report by the OPCW/UN Joint Mechanism had confirmed the use of chemical weapons by Syria. But they omitted to note that the UN Security Council had rejected this report because the Mechanism had not respected the rules of the OPCW.

Others pretended that the mission had established the use of chlorine in Douma. They forgot to specify that the OPCW considered it probable that a toxic agent containing chlorine was used as a weapon, and was possibly dispersed by two shells. They especially avoided mentioning that in the open air, chlorine is not a lethal poison, but an irritant - the reason it is not classified as a prohibited chemical weapon.

You are probably wondering why these Press articles escaped your notice, and why you have never heard any apologies from Mrs. May and Messrs. Macron and Trump? Simply because the Press is not doing its job of informing the public, and the Western leaders are without honour.